Editorial: A vote for dark money in Michigan elections

We can't control campaign spending, but we can, and should, have laws that ensure voters know the source of that spending. Apparently the state Senate disagrees, slamming the door on a proposal to expand Michigan campaign disclosure rules to include "issue" ads. It was a hasty and ill-advised decision.

Secretary of State Ruth Johnson's announcement Thursday that she would require disclosure on issue ads barely had time to make news before senators passed an amended bill to effectively nullify her decision.

The last-minute amendment was added to a bill doubling the state's campaign finance contribution limits, which passed by a 20-18 vote. The amendment would allow sponsors of ads not specifically urging a vote for or against a candidate to remain anonymous.

The original intent of the bill - to double limits - has plenty of critics.

The Michigan Campaign Finance Network reported that "The Michigan Senate has passed a bill that will increase the leverage over all things political of the 1% of the 1% of Michiganders who give maximum contributions to political candidates - at the expense of the 99.99% who don't."

Although we share concerns about the influence of money in electoral politics, our consistent stand has been that campaign spending limits are of almost no effect - money will always find its way into coffers, and its donors will always expect policymaking favorable to their interests.

Rather than limits, we believe that lawmakers at the state and national levels should pursue regulations that ensure voters understand the source of campaign money so that they can draw informed conclusions about the interests and expectations of those behind the campaign.

Johnson's requirement would help in that cause.

Johnson, a Republican, said voters have a right to know who pays for "some of the most negative advertising in political campaigning," referring to issue ads that are becoming increasingly prominent.

Johnson said her proposal - to be implemented through a change in state administrative rules, rather than through an amendment to the Michigan Campaign Finance Act - targets political ads that try to persuade voters about the worthiness or unworthiness of a candidate or proposal without actually using the words "vote for" or "elect." They often encourage voters to contact a specific candidate over an issue.

The proposed rule would apply to ads appearing in the 30 days leading up to a primary election and in the 60 days leading up to a general election.

"In a country where free speech is protected, these ads are part of the political landscape and we can't stop them - but when they try to influence an election, we can make sure the public knows who is paying for them," Johnson said.

We agree with the secretary, and we're appalled by the 3 to 1 party line vote to block the rule change.

The bill now goes to the House for consideration after the Legislature's two-week break. We hope that House members return with a mind to reject the amendment.

Dark money's sinister influence in electoral politics should be intolerable to any elected leader, and any effort to shed light on the source of that money deserves enthusiastic support.

The politicians who supported the amendment show they are more interested in protecting themselves and escaping accountability than serving the people of Michigan.